send_to_injected

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It transparently states the request-reply nature ('await its reply'), implying blocking behavior. Yet it omits what happens on timeout, if the script name is unknown, or whether side effects can occur, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, efficient sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too minimal. It lacks parameter semantics for 'name', timeout behavior, return value structure, and prerequisites, making it incomplete for confident invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the data parameter ('JSON data') and the general notion of an injected script. The required 'name' parameter is unexplained as the script identifier, and timeout_ms is not mentioned at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb (send), resource (injected script), and a clear follow-up action (await reply). It differentiates from siblings like inject_script (which injects) and execute_js (which executes arbitrary JS) by targeting a named, already-injected script.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied: one must first inject a script, then send data to it. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over execute_js or inject_script, nor mention any prerequisites or exclusion conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.